All About the New York Central Railroad and Others Like The D&H, Lackawanna, The Lehigh Valley, The New Haven Railroad, New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority, South Shore Line and other great railroads

The test track in Nevada is shaping up. Lot of folks around the World working on it. One of them is “The Muhammad Ali Hyperlink” who will build between Louisville, Kentucky and Chicago.

The positions of the trains, which are shown on each of the regional maps, is derived from Amtrak’s website. The status of these trains is only as accurate as the information Amtrak’s website provides. Please double check with Amtrak. Do not rely solely on these maps.

IMPORTANT: There are more than one version around. If you have the chance, try them all.

Ridership on New York State’s high-speed rail system will continue to rise even if no improvements are made

This will be due to the growth in population as well as the concentration of this population in the urban areas of the State. As urban congestion increases, rail travel will become the best alternative available for travel in more and more cases.

The first step in planning for the future has been taken by defining high-speed corridors. The Albany-New York corridor is the most highly developed and mature route. Frequency of service and speed are adequate and a definite need exists because of the extreme difficulty in entering New York City by other means. The Albany-Buffalo corridor is less well developed. Neither frequency of service nor speed are adequate to attract a large number of riders. The issue of speed represents a conflict with Conrail, a highly successful freight railroad. This conflict should be immediately resolved and train speeds increased to at least 90 M.P.H. Frequency must be increased to provide the traveler with an adequate and acceptable choice of travel times. Current problem areas are weekend peaks and lack of a westbound train early in the day. The Albany-Montreal route cannot really be considered a high-speed rail corridor at this point in time. It really represents a continuation of the local type of passenger service which was very much more widespread fifty years ago. Future track improvements and other changes could affect this. In addition, there may be a place in the future for additional corridors. The most logical extension would be a southern-tier route through Binghamton. Thought should also be directed to the Fort Drum (Watertown) area.

The obvious answer to building ridership has been increasing speed and/or train frequency. The approximately $100 million that New York has spent in the past several years has paid off very well in train speed and frequency improvements. In 1975, the fastest passenger runs in New York were 80 m.p.h. Now certain sections are 90 or even 110 m.p.h. However, will an additional $1 or $5 million spent on a ? M.p.h. average speed increase/attract a significant number of new riders? Can anyone justify running nearly empty trains in the interest of frequency?

The key markets along the 463 mile New York to Buffalo route are: (1980 census)

City

Population

New York City

9,120,000

Albany/Schenectady/Troy

795,000

Utica/Rome

320,000

Syracuse

642,000

Rochester

972,000

Buffalo

1,243,000

In 1977, the average trip mileage was 191 miles for this route as compared to 299 for New York-Montreal.

One very noticeable method of lowering the run time on a route is to decrease the number of stops. By establishing an efficient method of “feeding” each high-speed rail station, train speed would be increased and accordingly ridership would also increase. Efficient feeding of these stations would consist of:

Getting a little more specific, what steps could be taken in New York to apply this idea of feeding high-speed stations? Starting with New York City, one end of the high-speed rail system, we note that excellent use is already being made of secondary trains with Metro-North’s system and an excellent intermodal link with the subway system. Because of the extremely congested nature of the city, parking and links with highways are not practical; however, the stations served by secondary trains have adequate parking and good links with the highway system. There should be a high degree of coordination between Amtrak and Metro-North in the areas of scheduling and marketing.

If Albany was designated the next major stop on a truly high speed rail system, what changes would be required? Northbound trains could stop at Tarrytown (pick up only) and Rhinecliff. Tarrytown would be a more logical stop than Croton-Harmon because of the close link to the Tappan Zee Bridge; however, parking and access roads must be improved. All passengers between New York and Poughkeepsie would be handled by secondary trains (Metro-North). At Rhinecliff, passengers for points north of Rhinecliff would change to a secondary train that would proceed to Hudson. As well as cutting out a stop at Hudson, this train would bring high-speed passengers from Poughkeepsie to Rhinecliff. In a southbound direction, high-speed trains would stop at Rhinecliff and Tarrytown (drop off only). Passengers from Hudson would take the secondary train to Rhinecliff. Passengers to Poughkeepsie would change from high-speed service at Rhinecliff and continue on secondary service. By adding a train that basically shuttles between Poughkeepsie and Hudson, two stops can be eliminated. There is also the possibility that this shuttle service could be expanded to serve new stations if the need for service exists. It is unclear who would be in the best position to run this service (Amtrak, Metro-North, or someone else). Assuming Amtrak plans to move from Grand Central to Penn Station are fulfilled, it is unclear how best to handle passengers headed for Grand Central. The obvious solution would be a direct subway. The practical solution would be an across the platform train change at Tarrytown.

A similar shuttle could be operated from Amsterdam to Albany. This would serve to eliminate the stop at Schenectady. Another shuttle could operate between Utica and Syracuse and cut out the stop at Rome. This concept of using secondary train shuttles could be evaluated more fully and even tried experimentally. For instance, it could be tried between Utica and Amsterdam or between Albany and Hudson. In these cases, as well as feeding the high-speed service, it might attract new passengers from towns not now served by Amtrak (Herkimer, Little Falls, Fonda, Castleton, etc). It would also serve the commuter market in the larger upstate cities. Possibilities should not even be limited to current passenger routes. For instance, the Albany area could be served from the south by the Conrail River Division; the Schenectady area by the D&H; the Utica area by the NYS&W and Conrail’s Lyons Falls branch; the Syracuse area by Conrail; etc.

If the Albany-Montreal route were to be developed as a high-speed corridor in an attempt to capture a significant number of current air travelers, the shuttle concept would be vital in replacing the numerous station stops. Improved summertime service to Saratoga should be explored.

Boston service has been neglected and could be better developed in conjunction with Massachusetts. Between Pittsfield and Albany should represent a good area to draw passengers from. The Post Road connection is now solely dedicated to running one train each way daily. A well-timed shuttle could capture many riders from the growing Colombia and southern Rensselaer County area.

Use of freight routes for secondary trains should not represent a problem. Most of these roads have received government aid of one form or another in the past few years. This should give the State some leverage in obtaining their cooperation.

How does the term “secondary train” fit in? It is neither “commuter” vs. “transit” vs. “suburban”. It is a new term and means a feeder to a high-speed train.

If the State were to sponsor several secondary shuttle trains, a choice of operator would have to be made. The service could be contracted to Amtrak, Metro-North or any other bidder. Another alternative would be to contract to a private corporation with the State providing the equipment. This could either be an existing railroad or a brand new enterprise. In this case, the most practical solution would be to lease or buy some used equipment initially. As the service expands, newer equipment could be ordered. Routes with fewer passengers could be handled with rail diesel cars while more heavily traveled routes would require locomotive hauled coaches. Equipment should be configured so as to not necessitate turning at the end of a run. As newer equipment was secured, a stockpile of cars for a possible gas shortage could be accumulated and stored.

Haven’t a lot of these ideas already been tried? No, not really. We never had a high-speed service before. In 1967, the New York Central tried something called “Empire Service” which was to serve a market where passengers made under 200 mile trips. It became the role model for current Amtrak service. Their idea, which wasn’t carried far enough because of the Penn-Central merger, was to offer the traveler a clean, reliable alternative. To do this, they refurbished 40 cars and ran 8 trains a day between New York and Albany at 2-hour intervals. Five of these went to Buffalo and two went on to Chicago.

**********

A National High Speed Network?

The rail industry of today is a far cry from the “any load, anywhere-to-anywhere, siding-to-siding” rail industry of the post-World War II era.

At the time of the railroads’ greatest domonance of the intercity freight market, (around 1915, when intercity trucking was in its infancy), passenger trains averaged about 60 MPH, freights around 15-20 MPH. On main lines, the timetable/train order dispatching system then in use was almost as much concerned with allowing the priority passenger moves to overtake slower movements as with meeting and clearing conflicitng moves. Double-track, or on the busiest lines, quadruple track was the usual remedy, but block-signal systems usually operated in only one direction, and freights often had to take siding for overtaking moves.

The increased competition and improvements in motive power after World War I unshered in a slow-but-steady rise in freight speeds. Centralized Traffic Control and more-sophisticated block-signal systems operable in both directions also helped, but smaller and higher-valued shipments continued to leave the rails, often as much due to the inability to schedule consistent deliveries as the speeds themselves.

By 1970, the writing on the wall was clearly visible. The railroads slowly transformed themselves to carriers of very large quantities of mostly low-valued commodoites, although intermodal technology was able to retain a suprising quantity of traffic where volume was sufficient to justify regular and frequent moves. The new technology, combined with greater rate-making freedom and work-rules reform, returned the rails to the position of serious competitors, not only to some marginal truck markets, but to barges, lakeships, and pipelines.

Energy prices will continue to ebb and flow, but the diminishing supply of oil, and even the pressures driving the cost of recovery and environmental suitability of coal, are likely to strengthen the railroads’ hand. But whether the current rail traffic-control system can be modernized to restore some ot the flexibilty of a long-gone era, remains to be determined. It’s ironic that the most challenging jobs in dispatching in modern-day America are on predomionately-passenger lines.

1. NEC, naturally. Improved to higher speeds of course.

2. Chicago – (South Bend) – (Toledo) – Cleveland – Pittsburgh – Harrisburg – Philadelphia – and on to NYC as well as a branch from Pittsburgh to Washington DC

10. A continuation of the NEC down South: Washington DC – Richmond – Raleigh – Charlotte (I ignore the “Crescent Cities” in between, they get covered by the State and can meet up with the national system at Raleigh or Charlotte) – Greenville (state (NC) funded branch to Asheville) – Atlanta – Montgomery – Mobile – Gulfport/Biloxi – New Orleans. Also a branch from Raleigh – Fayetteville (with state funded line to Wilmington) – Myrtle Beach vicinity – Charleston – Hilton Head vicinity – Savannah – (Jessup) – Jacksonville

15. Texas Triangle: DFW (situated near the airport in between the two cities, local rail can connect this to the two downtowns) – (Waco) – (Temple) – Austin – San Antonio, DFW – (Waco) – (Bryan-College Station) – Houston – (Galveston {maybe}), Houston – (Bryan-College Station) – Austin – San Antonio. I choose this route as it hits a massive college town and would connect two of the largest universities in the country together, worth in my eyes the slight extra length of this routing. Houston direct to San Antonio would not generate as many trips as adding the other two midpoints to the route, and it shortens the length of rail that would have to be built.

Delaware to Old Saybrook

When Amtrak re-routed the Washington section of the Broadway Limited, it ran the train up the northeast corridor to Philadelphia and then west to Harrisburg where it was combined with the New York section of the Broadway. During this time the New York section of the Broadway did not stop at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. Later, when the sections were combined at Philadelphia, passengers “rode backwards” from New York City to Philadelphia so that power could be moved to the other end, trains hooked up and the whole entity moved westward out of the station. With the advent of the “Capitol”, this became superfluous, and the “B-way” certainly rides “forwards” the whole way now.

This points out why engineers’ plans should be implemented as originally specified. 30th St. was “supposed” to have a loop track on its southern end for just this purpose: so that a train could pull in south-bound (RR-west-bound) from New York City, pull out of 30th St. south-bound into the loop, loop around to north-bound, continue north-bound (RR-west-bound) to Zoo Interlocking (the major interlocking plant between 30th Street and North Philadelphia), then continue north-west on the line to Harrisburg. This loop was never put in, resulting in many Limiteds stopping only at North Philadelphia station, then taking the “NY-Pittsburgh subway” (wye track) at “Zoo” directly to the Harrisburg main.

It would also make sense that the trains would combine in Harrisburg instead of Philadelphia for another reason. Until relatively recent times, trains changed power at Harrisburg. Amtrak moved the power swap to Philadelphia in the mid-to-late-80s. Although electric units power most of the Harrisburg-Philadelphia trains, the Broadway Limited and the Pennsylvanian operate with diesel power to Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station where they pick up electric units for the trip to New York.

When the Broadway Limited was combined at Harrisburg, Amtrak chose the Port Road route between Harrisburg and Washington instead of the route used by Penn Central via York, PA. The only advantages of the former Northern Central route were that of (1) passing through a small city, i.e. York, and (2) slightly shorter route. However, track had been deteriorating badly on the otherwise lightly traveled York to Baltimore segment, and this was finally dealt the coup de grace by Hurricane Agnes in 1972, when portions of the line (as well as the nearby Western Maryland main line, among others) were washed out.

Mileage from New York City to North Philadelphia is 85 miles and 195 to Harrisburg. Mileage from Washington to Baltimore is 40, 96 to York and 123 to Harrisburg.

In the first year of Amtrak operation, the New York sections of the Broadway Limited and National Limited were combined in Harrisburg. And, initially, Amtrak did not operate a Washington section of the National. But it began doing so after protests that one of the route pairings was supposed to be Washington-Kansas City. So, for a while, two passenger trains operated over the Port Road which was freight-only until Amtrak came along.

The National Limited’s Washington section ran just three days a week. On the other four days, the timetable indicated that passengers were to make an across the platform transfer at North Philadelphia.

Returning to Philadelphia, I’d like to attempt a rough description of trackage in the area.

From 30th Street, the tracks funnel down to two, while a two-track ladder of slip switches veers to the northwest. The tracks closest to the river (the mains) are called the “River Line,” while the ladder leads to the “36th St. Connection.”

The 36th St. Connection passes under the High Line (Conrail’s elevated tracks, now officially the Harrisburg Line), paralleling it when it reaches Zoo. The four outer tracks from the upper level turn north, with SEPTA Powelton Yard in between. Tracks 5-6 from 30th St turn south to SEPTA CP-Walnut, the new University City station, and Arsenal interlocking.

At the south end of Zoo, the tracks go:
· Amtrak Main (River Line): two tracks
· Conrail Harrisburg Line (High Line): two tracks
· Amtrak 36th St. Connection: two tracks and yard lead
· SEPTA Main: two tracks
· SEPTA yard lead
· SEPTA Main: two tracks

Break it up into parts, and it’s pretty logical and definitely follows the Pennsylvania Rail Road’s engineering practice.

A plan for revitalizing the Philadelphia area service (now threatened to be cut out completely) calls for transfer of operations to someone (not necessarily SEPTA) with a lower cost-structure, renovation of the ten non-Airport Silverliner IIIs for intercity use (new seating, reinstall toilets), two-person operation, increased service frequency, restoration of one-seat service to central Philadelphia, and lower fares.

Politically, the service would be the responsibility of a new state-established agency, or a collaboration between Lancaster and Dauphin Counties and SEPTA. That agency would simply supervise the contracted-out operation. Revitalized Harrisburg service would replace SEPTA’s present extension of five trains to Parkesburg (one continuing to Lancaster), thereby saving SEPTA money. Dispatching control would be turned over to SEPTA, so the bulk of the line’s users, those who ride SEPTA local trains to Paoli, would get higher priority.

Amtrak would be rid of the annual deficit of the Harrisburg-Philadelphia locals; though it would keep the more remunerative New York City-Harrisburg trains and even boost ridership by omitting the lengthy stop at 30th St. (using the Zoo New York City-Pittsburgh “subway”) and would free up equipment. In exchange, it applies the money and equipment to a second daily “Pennsylvanian”. There’s the benefit for the rest of the state which makes the purchase of the Harrisburg line politically attractive.

Of these, Seashore is probably the largest, and is the only museum with the goal of covering the entire nation (virtually all other museums have a regional agenda, with occasional inclusion of other cars). My apologies to the operations I’ve left out of this list.

***********

Story of the Turbos

RTG was the original turbos that went into service in Chicago-St. Louis service. An old Trains article described the abbrevation as “Gas Turbine” in French. They looked very similar to the French sets, with the rounded cabs. There were six sets, the first and second one were imported from France, the others were built here. This was about the 1974 timeframe. The units also were in Chicago-Detroit service, and may have been in other Chicago hub service.

The RTL sets were were the same, built by Rohr, and having third-rail capability to operate in the Park Avenue tunnels. (hence the “L” in RTL). There were seven sets, delivered in 77-78. They also had a different face on the cabs, having an angled front end.

By the early 1980s, the RTG sets were benched. They sat for some years.

In the mid-1980s the turbos dominated the NY-Albany runs and were in regular service on the Niagara Rainbow. That was the era when F40s broke down or FL9s caught fire.

The RTG/RTL sets could top out at 112MPH.

In the late 1980s, there was an RTG set that was rebuilt. It was called the RTG-II. It looked very NICE compared to the RTLs, that always seemed to get sooty with service. It had a new fiberglass nose that matched the RTLs. I believe there were two, possibly three RTG-II sets. At one time there had been plans to rebuild all five, but this never happened.

By 1993/1994, there were lots of problems with the Turbos — a seized turbo caused a bad fire in a remote area near Schenectady, and a BAD fire in Penn Station resulted in the wheels being fused to the tracks. FDNY had to standby and watch the thing burn while they waited for power to be cut. By then it was pretty badly damaged.

By 1995, there were no more turbos left in service on the Empire Corridor, as Amtrak made a decision to take them out of service.

THEN — in April 1996, the RTL-II run for the first time. It was capable of operating at 125 MPH. The RTL-II managed to operate for well over five years before it had an engine failure in the early 21st century. Amtrak lacked the funds (or interest?) to fix it, and it sat sidelined for some time. BUT — it was sighted several times being pulled by a Genny when Amtrak was short on Amfleet coaches and needed the Turbo for the seats.

FINALLY, the RTL-III train arrived. It was rebuilt by Super Steel and painted in the New York State colors. It was an updated version of the RTL-II.

Amtrak was reluctant to run it, and eventually it DID go into service and typically made two round trips per day (one had a deadhead one way). But often it had Amleet equipment substituted.

Soon, there was a second set … and it too went into limited service on the Corridor. In theory, the RTL-II set was to go to Super Steel for rebuilding into another RTL-III set, and eventually there would be a total of five RTL-III sets. But none of this ever happened…

The last straw came in the summer of 2004 when the air conditioning was called “inadequate” and the two sets were pulled from service. What followed was the famous dispute when all three sets were towed to Delaware, where they have sat in storage ever since.